Chapter 11 Lecture Six

I feel overwhelmed by the amount and importance of what remains to be said.It is also because I often use Dostoevsky to explain my thoughts here, as you can see clearly from the beginning.For this reason, I am sorry if I have misinterpreted Dostoevsky's thoughts, but at best I am like the bee that Montaigne said, looking for something suitable for me to make honey in my favorite works of Dostoyevsky.However much a portrait resembles a model, it always resembles a painter almost as much.The greatest models are presumably the ones who find likenesses of all sorts and provide portraits for as many people as possible.I'm trying to draw a portrait of Dostoevsky.I feel that there are inexhaustible similarities in him.

I also feel overwhelmed by wanting to make extensive revisions to the previous presentation.But I didn't even make a revision, although every time I immediately felt that I had missed something, and promised to make up for it.Last Saturday was an example, and I wanted to explain to you why "bad literature is made with noble feelings" and "there is no art without the cooperation of the devil".This seems self-evident to me, but you may think it is outrageous, so it needs to be explained.By the way, I hate paradox very much, and I never pursue blockbusters, but if I don't have something quite new to say, I will never force myself to speak in front of everyone.Something new always stands out.In order to help you accept this truth, I do not hesitate to suggest that you pay attention to two figures, one is St. Francis and the other is Angelico.The latter can be great artists only because art, however innocent it may be, is art, which must allow the devil to cooperate.I cite as the most eloquent example the persons who are undoubtedly the purest in the history of human art.There is no work of art without the participation of the devil.The saint, not Angelico, but Francis.There are no artists among saints, and there are no saints among artists.

A work of art is like an alabaster jar full of ointment, which Mary has not yet anointed.In view of this, I quoted Blake's epigram for you last time: "Milton is timid in describing God and angels, and free in describing devils and hell. The reason is that he is a true poet. The devil himself doesn't know it." All works of art can stand on three legs, which are the three desires mentioned by the apostle: "envy, lust, and suicide." Do you remember what Lacordelle said?When he had done a good sermon and the people were congratulating him, he said, "The devil congratulated me before you." The devil would never have told him that his sermon was marvelous, and there was no need to. Such words, if the devil had not personally assisted in the preaching.

After citing Schiller's "Ode to Joy," Dmitry Karamazov exclaimed: "Beauty, what a terrible and hateful thing, a thrilling thing. It is the occasion where the devil fights with God; the battlefield is the heart." (The Brothers Karamazov, Vol. III, p. 3, according to German translation) Probably no artist has ever made the devil so beautiful in his work as Dostoevsky, except Blake, who concluded his marvelous little book, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, by saying Such a passage: "This angel, now turned into a devil, is my dear friend: we have often read the Bible together, in a wicked or diabolical sense, which the world will find in it, if it behaves well. "

Likewise, I left the lecture hall after quoting some of William Blake's most astonishing quotes from Hell's Words, only to realize immediately that I had left out an entire passage that had prompted me to To quote William Blake.Allow me now to make up for this omission.Also, in this segment, you can appreciate the confluence (and blending) of various components that I have tried to make clear to you in the previous lectures.The first thing you can appreciate is optimism, that is, a love of the wildness of life (which is common throughout Dostoyevsky's oeuvre), a love of life, of the world, of what Blake called "the great world full of joy." Wild love, in such a world there are tigers and lambs at the same time.

"Do you like children?" asked Stavrogin. "I like it," replied Kirillov, looking rather indifferent. "And you love life, too?" "Yes, I love life too. Are you surprised?" "But you decided to shoot yourself, didn't you?" [We also see Dmitry Karamazov in a moment of ecstasy, ready to commit suicide. ] "Hey! Why mix two very different things? Life exists and death doesn't." ... "You look happy, Kirillov?" "I'm very happy, indeed." Kirillov admitted, as if giving the most ordinary answer.

"But not long ago you were in a bad mood, angry with Liptina, weren't you?" "Well! Now I don't complain anymore. At that time I didn't know that I was happy... Man's misfortune is only because he doesn't know that he is happy, that's all. Once he knows that he is happy, he immediately becomes noble. All is well, this is what I discovered out of the blue." "If someone starves to death, if someone rapes a young girl, is that okay?" "Yes, all is well for one who understands that all is so." (Volume I, p. 256) Please do not misunderstand this apparent cruelty, which is so common in Dostoevsky's work.This cruelty is part of a quietism that resembles Blake's quietism.Dostoevsky's quietism leads me to think that Dostoevsky's Christianity is closer to Asia than to Rome, even though Dostoevsky acknowledges the impulse of force in his works.And Blake's more eulogizing of the impulse of force is closer to the West than to the East.

Yet both Blake and Dostoevsky were too dazzled by the truth of the Gospel to admit that this cruelty was transient, the temporary result of a blindness which meant that it must disappeared. It would be tantamount to turning your back on Blake if you only introduced him to his superficial cruelty.I have quoted to you his shocking "Proverbs of Hell", in contrast, I really want to read to you his poems, such as "Song of Innocence", which may be his most beautiful poem, but how dare you translate it so smoothly? Poetry, in which he declares and prophesies, that the might of the lion will only be used to protect weak lambs and guard the flock.

As we read further on in this thrilling conversation, Kirillov adds: "They are not good because they do not understand that they are good. Once they do, they will stop raping young girls. Let them know that they are good, and then they will all be good without exception." (Vol. page 258) Continuing the dialogue, we will discover the peculiar idea of ​​man-god. "So you understand that you're a good man, aren't you?" "yes." "It goes without saying that I agree with you on this point," said Stavrogin in a low voice, frowning. "He who tells people they are good will make the world perfect."

"He who had done so was crucified by them." "He will come again, and will become a human god, and his name will go down in history." "God man?" "No, it's human and god, there's a difference." The idea of ​​"man-god" following "god-man" brings us back to Nietzsche.Here I also want to make a little modification to the "Superman" doctrine, and oppose a view that has been abused and hastily accepted.The reason why Nietzsche's Superman uses "be ruthless" as his motto, which is often quoted and misunderstood, is because Nietzsche used self-denial, not ruthlessness.This helps us distinguish between Raskolnikov and Kirillov's looming Superman.Nietzsche contends that the transcendent humanity is his own.In a nutshell, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky start from the same problem and propose different or even opposite solutions to the problem.Nietzsche advocated self-affirmation, from which we can see the purpose of life.Dostoevsky advocated patience.Where Nietzsche foresaw the pinnacle, Dostoevsky foresaw only the imminent downfall.

I read this opinion in a letter from a male nurse who was too modest to let me name him.It was in the darkest period of the Great War, and what he saw was unbearable misery and heard only moans of despair, so he wrote: "Oh! If only they were good at giving their pain!" This cry is so obvious, I thought it would be superfluous to add more comments, and the most used sentence is compared with it: "When you water the earth with your tears, when you use your tears as a gift to others, your sorrow and hatred will disappear in an instant, and you will feel infinite comfort." (Volume 1, page 148) We are very close to Pascal's "thorough and sweet endurance" here.This endurance caused Pascal to exclaim: "Happy! Happy! Tears of joy." This state of bliss, which we have seen so often in Dostoevsky, is what the Gospels recommend to us, and is the state into which we enter when we receive what Christ calls the new birth; can only be obtained by the individual.Because it is the attachment to ourselves that prevents us from entering eternity, God's kingdom of heaven, and prevents us from having the feeling of being one with the life of the universe. The primary effect of this new birth is to bring people back to the original mentality of children: "You can't enter the kingdom of heaven if you don't become like children." Let me quote a sentence from La Bruyère: "Children have no past." They don't know the future, they only care about the present." This is something adults can't do. "At this moment," Myshkin said to Rogojina, "I feel I understand the remarkable words of the apostle: 'Time will cease to exist.'" This immediate entry into eternal life, as I have told you, has already been revealed to us by the frequent occurrence of "ET NUNC (from now on)" in the Gospel. The state of euphoria mentioned by Christ is an imminent state, not a future state .” "Do you believe in immortality in another world?" "No, but believe in eternal life in this world. There are moments when time is suddenly stopped, and thus eternity." Towards the end, Dostoevsky recalls the strange state of euphoria Kirilov has achieved. You may wish to read a paragraph of it, which can enable us to understand Dostoevsky's thoughts more deeply, and discuss an extremely important truth, which is what I want to explain to you at the end. "There are moments, lasting only five or six seconds, when you suddenly feel that eternal harmony appears in front of you. This phenomenon is neither earthly nor heavenly, but it is something that people wrapped in the earthly world cannot bear. There must be a change in the body Or death. This feeling is clear and indisputable. You feel as if you are connected with the whole of nature at once, and you will say: Ah! It is true! When God created the world, he created it every day. In the Bible Just say: 'God sees good'. It's...it's not emotion, it's joy. You don't forgive anything, because there's nothing to forgive anymore. You don't love anything, oh! It surpasses love! The most amazing thing is that this emotion manifests clearly and dazzlingly, and your whole body and mind are filled with joy. If this state lasts for more than five seconds, the mind cannot resist and dies. During these five seconds, I I've been through my whole life and I'd give my whole life for it, even if it's the price. In order to survive ten seconds, you have to be reborn. In my opinion, humans should stop reproducing. Why have children, Why reproduce and develop, since the purpose has been achieved?" "Kirilov, does this often happen to you?" "Every three days, or once a week." "You don't suffer from epilepsy?" "No." "Then you'll get epilepsy. Watch out, Kirillov, that's how I've heard it all started. An epileptic gave me a detailed account of what it was like before he got sick. As I listened to your description, I remembered What he said. He also talked to me about five seconds and told me he couldn't stand it longer. Remember Muhammad's jug: as the water in the jug flowed out, the Prophet rode into Paradise. The jug is yours Five-second situation: Paradise is your harmony. Muhammad was epileptic. Be careful not to be epileptic, Kirillov." "I'm afraid it's too late." The engineer smiled indifferently when he replied. (Volume 2, page 303) In "The Idiot" we also hear Prince Myshkin attribute the euphoric phenomena he experienced to epileptic seizures. In short, Myshkin is epileptic, Kirillov is epileptic, Smedyakov is epileptic.Every one of Dostoyevsky's great books has an epileptic, and we know that Dostoevsky himself was epileptic.He introduces epilepsy into the novel several times, enough to allow us to see the role he allows the disease to play in the trajectory of his thought in the formation of his ethics. At the beginning of every major ethical reform, if we probe into the subtleties, we can always find some little mystery in the body, some defect in the body, some restlessness in the mind, or some congenital deficiency.Here, sorry, I have to quote my own article, but without repeating the same text, the same thing can be said directly and clearly. All major ethical reforms, what Nietzsche called all transformations of values, are naturally triggered by a certain physiological balance.In abundance and ease the mind is idle; and as long as the mind is in a state of contentment it is impossible to voluntarily change the idleness, by which I mean internal conditions, not external or social conditions, for to change the latter the motive of the reformer is entirely Changed; the former is like a chemist, the latter a mechanic.At the beginning of a reform, people are always panicked, and the restlessness of reformers is a kind of panic that loses their inner balance.The density of reform, the attitude of reform, and the value concept of reform are different from what he feels when he proposes to the reformer. His job is to reconcile all these, because he longs for a new balance.What he does is nothing more than an experiment in recombination according to his intellect, his logic, his inner disorder, for with him a state of disobedience is intolerable.Of course, I am not saying that as long as the spirit is unbalanced, one can become a reformer, but I insist that all reformers are first of all spiritually unbalanced people. ("Selected Works of Gide", page 101) I would imagine that among the reformers who proposed new valuations to human beings, there was not a single one who did not suffer from a congenital defect, as Pinet-Sangler calls it.This man has written a rebellious book titled "The Madness of Jesus Christ", which tends to deny the importance of Christ and Christianity, arguing that Christ is a lunatic with congenital physical defects. Muhammad was epileptic, the prophets of Israel were epileptic, and so were Luther and Dostoevsky.Socrates is possessed by a spirit, St. Paul has a mysterious thorn in his body, Pascal faces the abyss, and Nietzsche and Rousseau end up mad. At this point, I know someone will say: "That's not new, it's just Lombroso's or Noldo's theory: Geniuses must be neurotics." No, no, don't jump to conclusions about my words, please allow me I emphasize what seems to me to be a very important point: There are geniuses who are physically strong and heroic, such as Victor Hugo, and he enjoys an inner balance that does not cause him any new problems.Rousseau is probably just a difficult Cicero if he is not mad.Don't come and say to us, "It's a pity he's sick!" If he wasn't sick, he wouldn't be trying to solve the problems that his abnormality caused him, or trying to find a harmony that does not exclude the noise.It is true that some reformers were in excellent health, but they were legislators.He who enjoys perfect inner balance is likely to bring about reforms, but those outside the person: reformers establish laws.As for the deviant, on the contrary, he evades pre-established laws. After Dostoevsky learned about his illness, he imagined a sickness, which he carried for a period of time, and injected it into the life of a certain character in his works in different forms.In this case, Kirillov, the character we see in the novel, is the basis of the entire plot of the novel.We know that Kirillov is going to commit suicide, not that he should commit suicide immediately, but that he intends to.Why?We'll have to wait until the end of the novel to find out. "I don't know why your idea of ​​suicide is a whim," said Pierre Stepanovitch to Kirillov. And this plan was disclosed not to me, but to our comrades in political asylum abroad. Also note that none of them forced you to reveal such a secret, and no one even knew you at the time. It was your own whim I said it. Hey! What can I do? People take your voluntary offer seriously, and determine a certain action plan according to your wishes. It is your own willingness. Please pay attention to this, and there is no way to change it now.” (p. Volume 2, page 332) Kirillov's suicide is senseless, I mean his suicide motive is not external.The most ridiculous thing in the world is to use the behavior of "doing nothing" as a shield. Let's discuss it. Since Kirilov made up his mind to commit suicide, he has been indifferent to everything. He has been in a strange state of mind to facilitate his suicide. It can be done for others, or so Pierre Stepanovitch thought. Pierre Stepanovich wanted to restrain the accomplices headed by him for the crime he had planned.He believes that every member of the rebellion must feel the same guilt once he participates in the conspiracy of rebellion, and no one can and dare not wash their hands and quit. —Who is going to kill? Pierre Stepanovich hesitated.The key is to stand up for the dead ghost. The rebellious comrades gathered in a common hall, and asked a question during the discussion: "At this moment, will there be an informer among us?" "Gentlemen, if there is an informer," continued Pierre Stepanovitch, "I am more involved than anyone else, so I ask you to answer a question, and it would be best if you would answer it. You are completely free!" "What's the problem? What's the problem?" Someone asked loudly from all around. "After the questions are answered, everyone knows whether we should stay together or quietly pick up our hats and go our separate ways." "Ask questions, ask questions!" "If any of you were to learn of a premeditated political assassination, would he, having foreseen all the consequences, report it, or would he stay at home and wait? You may have different opinions on this question. Answering this question will certainly clarify Should we part or stay together, and not just tonight." (Volume II, pp. 83-84) Next, Pierre Stepanovich began to ask individual questions, calling out the names of several members of the secret society. "There's no need to ask," everyone replied in unison, "There are no informers here." "Why did that gentleman stand up?" a female college student shouted. "It's Shatov. Why are you standing up?" Madame Viginsky asked. Indeed, Shatov got up, hat in hand, looked intently at Vykhovinsky, seemed to want to speak to him, but hesitated, pale and angry, and finally suppressed his anger and said nothing. walk towards the door. "It's no good for you, Shatov!" Pierre Stepanovitch called to him. Shatov stopped suddenly at the door and retorted at the veiled threat: "On the contrary, a coward and a spy like you can benefit the fisherman!" He scolded and walked away. The audience yelled again, shouting and drinking, it was so lively. "The test is completed." (Vol. II, p. 85) The person who should be killed stood up automatically.We must act quickly, and kill Shatov before he denounces. Here, let's appreciate Dostoevsky's art. I am so sorry that I have been discussing his thoughts to everyone, but I have neglected to talk about his exquisite art of expounding his thoughts. Writing this has a wonderful effect and raises a special artistic problem.Generally speaking, when the plot develops to a certain stage, it should not be scattered.At that time, the plot picks up pace and goes straight to the finish line.Hi!Dostoevsky stops there precisely at the moment when the plot takes a sharp turn, completely bewildered by his imagination.He feels that the reader's attention is highly concentrated at this moment, and everything will be very important.He is not afraid to distract the main thread with his pen and ink, just to highlight his most secret thoughts.On the night when Shatov was about to inform or be assassinated, his wife, whom he had not seen for many years, suddenly came to his residence.She was about to give birth, but Kirillov initially did not notice her condition at all. If this scene is not handled properly, it is likely to become grotesque.It is, however, the most exciting scene in the book, forming what is called an "effect" in the theater jargon and a "pivot" in literature, and it is precisely in this that Dostoevsky's art is most brilliant.He may agree with Poussin's words: "I have never dared to neglect a little bit." Great artists are obvious at this point, turning everything into a fuss, and even turning disadvantages into advantages.The plot should slow down at this point, and everything that avoids rushing to success is very important.Dostoevsky narrates to us the sudden arrival of Shatov's wife, the conversation between the couple, Kirillov's interference, the sudden animosity that arose between the two men; The best chapter of this book.In this chapter we are again glad to see no envy, as I have already explained to you.Shatov knew that his wife was pregnant, but he did not want to be the father of the child she was expecting, although he loved her passionately, and his wife, who was suffering in every possible way, kept insulting and embarrassing him. "However, the bastards, who were threatened with denunciation, were rescued and cleared of their enemies. Marie's return changed Shatov's mind, and made him lose his tact and his usual prudence. From then on his thoughts were nothing but personal safety. , filled with many other things." (Vol. II, p. 284) Back to Kirillov: the time has come for Pierre Stepanovich to use him to commit suicide.On what grounds did Kirilov commit suicide?Pierre Stepanovitch questioned him, but he couldn't figure it out, he couldn't figure it out, but he wanted to find out, and he was afraid that Kirillov would change his mind and slip away from him... No, Will not. "I will not delay," said Kirillov, "and now this is my life." (Vol. II, p. 285) The dialogue between Pierre Stepanovich and Kirillov is particularly uncanny, unfathomable even in Dostoevsky's mind.As usual, Dostoevsky again does not state his thoughts directly, but always acts as its expressor through and through the mouths of others.Kirilov is eccentric and hopeless.About to commit suicide in a few minutes, he speaks incoherently and doesn't match his words.It is up to us to sort out the chaos and organize Dostoevsky's thoughts. The ideas that prompted Kirillov to kill himself belonged to the category of mysticism, of which Pierre knew nothing. "If there is a God, everything is subject to God, I can only bow my head. If there is no God, everything depends on myself, then I must show my independence... I have committed suicide to show my complete independence. I should go to myself Shot in the head." (Volume II, p. 284) To quote another paragraph: "God is necessary and therefore ought to exist." "Well, that's quite right," agreed Pierre Stepanovitch, with only one thought in mind: to encourage Kirillov to commit suicide. "But I know God doesn't exist and can't exist." "Absolutely." "One cannot live with the coexistence of these two kinds of thinking, don't you understand?" "Should shoot yourself in the head, shouldn't you?" "No, there are very good reasons for suicide, don't you understand?" ... "However, you are not the first to think of suicide. Many people have committed suicide." "They all killed themselves for a reason. No one has ever committed suicide without any motive and just to prove their independence, and I will be the first." "He's not going to kill himself," thought Pierre Stepanovitch again, and he said aggressively, "do you know that in your place, to show my independence, I would Kill others instead of suicide. Then you will be useful. I will appoint someone for you, if you are not afraid.” (Volume II, pp. 334, 336 and 337) He pondered for a moment, thinking that if Kirillov flinched, it would prompt him to assassinate Shatov, not just make him guilty. "Come on, don't shoot yourself in the head today. There's a way." "Killing someone without committing suicide is a demonstration of my independence in the most vile form. You are old in this way, and I am not like you. I must kill myself if I want to achieve the highest independence... It is my duty to express my doubts about God. existence," Kirillov went on, striding up and down the room, "in my opinion, there is no higher meaning than the denial of God. I have my own view of human history. God was created in troubled times, and this is a summary of the history of the universe so far. I am the first to overthrow the existence of a fictional God in human history." (Volume II, page 337) Let us not forget that Dostoevsky was thoroughly Christian.He points out to us, through Kirillov's assertion, that the collapse has occurred again.We have said that Dostoevsky believed that salvation could only be achieved by self-denial.But a new kind of thinking came to graft on, and I quote Blake's "Hell Proverbs" again: "If others had not been foolish, we should be so." ("Others have not been foolish, we should be so." In order for us not to be mad, others must first be mad.") Kirillov had the idea of ​​​​sacrifice when he was half mad and half mad: "I will strike first and open the door." If Kirilov had to be insane to produce the above idea (and Dostoevsky did not agree with it all, because it was a spirit of rebellion), then his idea contained part of the truth; moreover, the reason why Kirilov It is necessary to be insane to have the above thoughts, and it is precisely for us to have his thoughts when we are sane. "That guy must first kill himself alone," Kirillov went on, "otherwise whoever sets the precedent will prove it? Now I must set the precedent by committing suicide. But I was forced to become a god, so I am unlucky , because I had to show my freedom. All are unhappy because everyone is afraid to show his freedom. Man has hitherto been wretchedly unhappy because he has not dared to show freedom in the highest sense, because Satisfied with schoolboy resistance. "But I will show my independence. I have a responsibility to believe that I don't believe in God. I will be the one who started it. I will take the shortest way to open the sky. I will save humanity. "... "I've been looking for three years for my celestial attribute, and I've finally found it: my celestial attribute, which is independence. So I can express my rebelliousness to the maximum, my new and terrible freedom, because indeed my freedom is terrible .. I shall demonstrate my rebellion, my new and terrible freedom, by suicide." (Volume II, p. 339) Regardless of how Kirilov blasphemes religion here, please believe that Dostoevsky was inspired by Christ in a trance when he created the image of Kirilov. In order to save mankind, he must make a sacrifice on the cross.If the sacrifice of Christ was necessary, was it not so that we Christians should not suffer the same martyrdom?Someone said to Christ: "Save yourself, since you are God."—"If I save myself, then you will suffer. It is to save you that I was martyred and I dedicated myself." I would like to quote a passage from the appendix of Dostoevsky's "Letters", which is very helpful for understanding the character of Kirillov: "Please understand my words well. Voluntary sacrifice, self-conscious devotion, self-sacrifice for the public, in my opinion, is a sign of a highly developed personality, a sign of a superior personality, a sign of a high degree of self-control, and a sign of the highest free will Conscious and voluntary sacrifice of one's life for others, crucifixion for all, and burning oneself on the pyre are all possible only when the personality is highly developed. A highly developed personality is convinced of the right to be a personality , no longer to be afraid of oneself, not to use one's own personality for profit, that is to say, to use it only for the sake of others, so that all others may become the same powerful personality, that is, independent and fulfilled personality. It is natural Regularity; normal people fall in love with it and never get tired of it." ("Collected Letters" p. 540) It can thus be seen that, although Kirilov's words seem a bit disorganized at first glance, we can find in them Dostoevsky's own thoughts. I feel that I have not exhausted the teachings provided by Doshi's works.Besides, what I seek consciously or unconsciously from it is what is closest to my own thinking.Others may find something else in it.Now that we have come to the end of the last lecture, you probably want me to conclude: Where is Dostoevsky leading us?What did he teach us? One could say that Dostoevsky leads us directly to the Bolsheviks, even though he knows that Dostoevsky hates anarchy terribly.The whole is prescient about the future of Russia.Anyone who proposes a new set of values ​​against established opinions must be considered an anarchist in the eyes of conservatives.Conservatives and nationalists have conspired to make a mess of Dostoevsky's work, concluding that Dostoyevsky is of no use to us.I retorted that their opposition seemed an insult to the spirit of France.It is a big mistake to only accept foreign things that are similar to us, and to find our order, logic and even our image from them.Yes, France may not like grotesques, but Dostoevsky is not grotesques in the first place, far from it, far from it, but his aesthetic view is different from our Mediterranean cultural view; Bigger, what is the French spirit used for, what is the French logic used for, isn’t it just used to sort out the things that need to be sorted out? France is in mortal danger by staring only at her own image, only at the image of her past.To be as accurate and as prudent as possible, my thoughts are this: it is a good thing that France has conservatives who uphold tradition and rise up against what they consider a foreign encroachment.This gives them a basis for existence.It can be regarded as their new contribution, otherwise our French culture may become an empty shell, a rigid shell.What do they know of the French spirit?What do we know?Don't you only know what has been in the past?This is true whether national sentiment or the church is involved.What I mean is that conservatives tend to treat geniuses of all kinds in the same way that churches treat saints.Many saints were at first rejected and abandoned in the name of tradition, but soon became the pillars of the so-called edifice of tradition. I often express my views on spiritual protectionism.I humbly think that spiritual protectionism is very dangerous, but all speech that is not national spirit is not without danger.When I say this, I am also elaborating Dostoevsky's thoughts.No writer has more Russia in mind than Europe in general.Precisely because he maintains Russian characteristics, he may have the mind to tolerate all mankind, and he may impress each of us in a unique way. "Old Europeans in Russia," he said himself, and through Versilov in "The Boy": "Antagonisms are reconciled in the Russian mind... so who knows such a mind? Anyway, I'm wandering alone. I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about the Russian mind. Some are cynical, some are strict logic; and a Frenchman over there is just a Frenchman, and a German is just a German, more rigid than at any time in their history, so that the French do more harm to France than ever, and the Germans do more harm to Germany than ever .There is more than one Europe in all of Europe! I am the only one who can say to the arsonists that their burning down of the Tuileries was a crime. To those brutal conservatives, the crime has a reason: I am the 'only Europeans'. Once again, the so-called me does not refer to myself, but to Russian thought." ("Youth" p. 509) Let's read a passage later: “欧洲创造了高贵的法国典型，高贵的英国典型，高贵的德国典型，但对未来的欧洲人还一无所知。我觉得欧洲压根儿就不想知道。这是可以理解的，因为他们不自由，而我们，则是自由的。只有我，怀着俄罗斯的苦恼，在欧洲尚为自由……朋友，请注意一个特点：法国人大致都可以除法兰西之外服务于人类，但有个严格的条件，即必须法国人依然如故。英国人亦然；德国人亦然。俄国人，现今已经定型，其实远在最后定型以前已经定型，将来可以成为更好的俄国典型，同时成为更地道的欧洲典型，这就是我们民族本质之所在。”（《少年》第五一一页） 有鉴于此，加上很想给大家指出，陀思妥耶夫斯基对过于使一个国家欧洲化所存在的极端危险是洞若观火的，我谨向大家引用中几个精彩的片断： “科学和理性历来在各国人民生活中只起次要的作用，并且直到世纪末日也必定如此。各民族依据某种主要力量而形成而变动，其力量的来源是不为人所知和无法解释的。这种力量在于非达终结不罢休的贪欲，但同时又否认终结。一国人民总是始终不渝、不知疲倦地肯定其存在，否定其死亡，正如《圣经》所说的'终身精神'，有如'湍湍活水'，《启示录》预言必将枯干；哲学家的美学或道德原理，用句最简单的话来说，就是'求神'。每个国家的人民在其存在的每个阶段，一切国民运动的目的仅仅在于求神，寻求属于自己的神，作为惟一真正的神加以信仰。神是全体人民自起源至终结的综合人格。还未见过各国人民或多国人民联合崇拜同一个神，向来是每个人民有自己的神明。每当宗教信仰开始推广，多民族的摧毁就临近了。每当诸神丢失本土的特色，那就要消亡了，并且跟各自的人民一起消亡。一个民族越是强盛，其神明就越不同于其他神明。从未遇见过没有宗教的人民，就是说尚未见过无善恶观的人民。每一个民族的人民对善与恶以自己的方式加以理解。善与恶的观念若在好几国人民中得到相同的理解，那就要消亡了，甚至恶与善的区别也开始消退和消失了。”（第一卷第二七四页）“大洋洲诸岛的居民消亡了，因为缺乏约束其行动的整体理念，没有判断什么是善是恶的共同尺度。”（雷克吕著《地理》第十四卷第九三一页） ... “我不相信您说的，”斯塔夫罗金指出，“您对我的想法开始深表赞成，但随后不知不觉地偷梁换柱。仅此，您就认为神明只不过是民族性简单的象征……” 他转而加倍盯视沙托夫，发现此刻触动的沙托夫不是自己的言语而是自己的表情。 “我贬低神明，因为我把神明比作民族性的象征？”沙托夫喊道，“正相反哪，我把人民提升为神明哩。人民何时不是如此？人民是神明的躯体。一个民族要经久不衰地名副其实，就得有自己独特的神明，就得执着地摈弃一切其他神明，就得准备跟自己的神明一起战胜所有的外国神明，并把它们赶出世界。各大民族的宗教信仰有史以来一向如此，至少在历史上留下印记、带领过人类的民族的宗教信仰向来如此。事例俯拾即是。犹太人一向只为等待真正的神明而活着，从而为人间留下真神。希腊人神化了大自然，从而为人间留下他们的宗教，即哲学和艺术。罗马把人民神化为国家，从而为各现代民族留下国家。法兰西在其漫长的历史长河中专心致志体现其罗马神的意念，并加以发展。 "... “倘若一个伟大的民族不相信自己独揽真理，不相信舍我其谁地以其真理唤醒和拯救世人，那就立即不再是伟大的人民，不过是人种志的材料。一个真正伟大民族的人民从来不能满足于在人间起次要作用，即使起重要作用也不足为道，绝对必须起首要作用。一个民族摈弃这种信念等于摈弃生存。”（第一卷第二三五至二七六页） “每当人们失去与祖国的联系，就失去上帝。”斯塔夫罗金这个想法可以作为前述思想的结论，这是必然的结果嘛。 陀思妥耶夫斯基在天之灵会对今天的俄国以及他所奉若神明的人民有何想法？当然这是不堪想像的……对当今糟透的灾难他预料到了吗？他能够预料吗？ 在中，我们已经看到活脱脱的布尔什维主义正在酝酿。只要听听希加莱夫陈述其思想体系就清楚了，他讲到最后，承认道： “我对自己的论据不知所措，我的结论与我的逻辑前提是针锋相对的。我从无限的自由出发，达到无限的专制。”（第二卷第七十四页） 再听十恶不赦的皮埃尔·韦克霍文斯基说些什么： “那将是史无前例的混乱，史无前例的动荡。俄罗斯将笼罩在一片黑暗中，将缅怀旧时的神明，呼天抢地，哭个不停。”（第二卷第九十七页） 把小说或记叙人物所表达的思想归属于作者大概是不谨慎的，即便是诚实的，但我们知道陀思妥耶夫斯基的思想是通过其人物整体表达的……往往他通过某个无关紧要的人物道出他弥足珍贵的真理。 君不见正是通过《永久的丈夫》一个次要人物道出他自己称为“俄国病”的现象： “依鄙人之见，当今之下，我们根本不晓得在俄国该尊敬谁。请承认，不晓得敬谁重甚，总是个时代可怕的灾难吧……难道不对吗？”（《永久的丈夫》第一七七页） 我很明白，尽管俄罗斯如今在黑暗中挣扎，陀思妥耶夫斯基若健在，没准还会寄予希望。或许他也会认为俄罗斯正以基里洛夫的方式做自我牺牲，这个想法在他的小说和书信中不止一次出现；也许会进而认为这种牺牲有益于拯救欧洲其他国家和尚存的人类。